Allowed

Avinash Mohandas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2017WP(C)/36851/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved an Indian citizen seeking to marry a foreign national under the Special Marriage Act. The Court held that Section 4 does not restrict parties to Indian citizens and dismissed the objection raised by the Marriage Officer.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 set aside; application accepted; notice given by 3rd respondent; petitioner permitted to contract the marriage.

Avinash Mohandas Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/25TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 36851 of 2017 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AVINASH MOHANDAS, S/O MOHANDAS, HARISMRUTHI HOUSE, ANAKAMPAD, KALADI P.O., PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.RANJIT BABU SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (REGISTRATION), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-895001.

¶11

2 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, O/O THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

¶12

3 SUB REGISTRAR/MARRIAGE OFFICER, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679582.

¶13

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 36851 of 2017 (F)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES PETITIONER'S PASSPORT
P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PASSPORT OF MISS.WANDA SUSSMANN
P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE VISA ISSUED TO MISS. WANDA SUSSMANN
P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE RECORD OF THE BIRTH SWISS CONFEDERATION, CIVIL STATUS OFFICE
P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
P8	THE TRUE COPY OF NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.10.2017 EXECUTED BY MISS. WANDA SUSSMANN
P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.7.2017 ISSUED BY CIVIL STATUS OFFICE, SWISS CONFEDERATION ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF RELEVANT PAGE

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

¶23

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶24

=====================

¶25

W.P.(C)No.36851 of 2017-F

¶26

========================== Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2017

¶27

Judgment

¶28

The petitioner, an Indian citizen, desires to enter into a marriage with one Wanda Sussmann, a foreign national. The petitioner, residing under the jurisdiction of the Marriage Officer/Sub Registrar, the 3^rd respondent herein, made an application for contracting the said marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. An objection was raised by the 3^rd respondent, allegedly on the ground that the marriage is intended to be entered into with a foreign citizen and, hence, the provisions of the Special Marriage Act cannot be invoked. The impugned order is produced at Ext.P6.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.36851/2017

¶31

In fact, the said issue was already considered by

¶32

this Court in Rajeev v. State of Kerala [2001 (1) KLT 578], which relied on a decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Marian Eva v. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 7]. The Court categorically found that the Special Marriage Act does not contain any prohibition for solemnisation of the marriage, if one of the parties is a foreigner. This Court has also reiterated the said position in W.P.(C) No.13276 of 2015, vide judgment dated 01.06.2015.

¶33

A reading of the provisions of the Special

¶34

Marriage Act would also indicate that, Section 4 contemplates that a marriage between “any two persons” could be solemnized under the Act; if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled. It is also relevant that, by Circular No.R.R.6.23638/14 dated 23.10.2014, which is referred to in

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No.36851/2017

¶37

Ext.P6, the Government had answered a clarification made by the Inspector General of Registration and specifically indicated after citing the aforesaid decisions that the word “person” used in Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act does not indicate either one of the parties or both the parties should be citizens of India.

¶38

In the present case, the petitioner, a citizen of

¶39

India, is a resident within the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent. The Switzerland citizen, who he intends to marry, is not having permanent residence in India and even if a Marriage Officer is appointed by the Government of India in its Embassy at Switzerland, there would be no requirement of informing such Marriage Officer, since the intending bride is a Switzerland citizen. In such circumstance, Ext.P6 is set aside. The application of the petitioner shall be accepted and notice shall

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.36851/2017

¶42

be given by the 3^rd respondent as required under the Act and the petitioner permitted to contract the marriage as intended

¶43

by him, which shall be solemnised under the Act.

¶44

The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶46

SB/16/11/2017

¶47

// true copy //

¶48

P.A to Judge

Avinash Mohandas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Mohandas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamza.P Vs Canara Bank

S.Surekha Vs State of Kerala

Bhavani Vs Tahsildar

Simma D(Minor), Rep.by Her Mother Deepa Dinesh Vs the Assistant Educational Officer

Pooja S Raja(Minor) Vs the Principal , Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan School

The Chess Association of Kerala Vs the Kerala State Sports Council